The Great Christmas Exchange...The
Reason for The Season?Below is an article I wrote several
years ago but deserves an airing at this time of the year.

The Great Christmas Exchange

by Kenneth Westby

Q
"Doesn’t our celebration of Christmas have some roots in
pagan religious practices? How do you feel about Christians
participating in that sort of thing?"

Actually, the above
question wasn’t asked of me or of The New Millennium, the journal I edit.
It

was the lead question
from Dr. James Dobson’s Q & A column in a recent issue of Focus on the

Family
magazine. It’s a good question, as is Dr. Dobson’s fair, honest, and reasoned
answer. I

challenge his
conclusion, but admire his candor. Here is the entirety of his answer, followed
by

my comments.

A "It’s true
that the timing of our modern Christmas season coincides with that of an ancient

Roman festival, the
Saturnalia. There’s even an historical connection between the two. In the

fourth century,
Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman

Empire and outlawed
all pagan religious practices.

"But it seems
Constantine also had a fair understanding of human nature and was something of

a diplomat. He didn’t
want the public outcry that would be sure to result if he simply banned the

Saturnalia. He
declared that the festivities should continue from year to year, but be given a
new

meaning. The old
pagan holiday was transformed into a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ -

- the most important
event in human history! In time, the old pagan associations faded and were

eventually forgotten.

"Despite the secular
origins of the Christmas holiday, I am not troubled by its celebration.

I do
understand why other believers are, and I respect their point of view. To my
mind, it’s what

you make of the event
that counts -- as the old Emperor seems to have understood so well.

"I seriously doubt
that any of us today are in much danger of being lured into the worship of

Roman deities. For
us, a much more serious threat is posed by the gods of materialism and

secularism, who have
so successfully established themselves on what Constantine intended to

be holy ground.

"But it doesn’t have
to be that way. For our family, Christmas has traditionally been one of the

spiritual highlights
of the year, as well as the focal point of many treasured memories. It is my

opinion that this
holy holiday can be the same for any family that chooses to make it so."

I believe Dr.
Dobson’s response to the question of Christmas’ pagan roots and practices
reflects

a widely held view
among Christian teachers. Much more could, of course, be brought up on the

historical roots of
this pagan religious celebration.

Quick research will
reveal that Christmas and it’s most popular practices predate the Roman

deities Dobson
mentions, taking us back to its religious genesis among Babylonian sun and

fertility (sex)
worship. A few days before Christmas in 1993 Pope John Paul II admitted that the

25th of December date
didn’t come from the Bible: "On that day in pagan antiquity, the birthday

of the ‘Invincible
Sun’ was celebrated to coincide with the winter solstice. . . . It seemed
logical

and natural to
Christians to replace that feast with the celebration of the only and true Sun,

Jesus Christ."

Apparently,
establishing a false and fabricated date for the birth of Christ and then
merging true

worship with pagan
customs seemed quite "logical and natural." It didn’t to the early Christians.

But then as a Vatican
press release stated: "The festival of Christmas appeared for the first time

[as an official
church celebration] in 354 [AD]" -- three centuries after Christ.

THE EXCHANGE

It is important to
understand that Christmas, and Easter, modern Christianity’s other major

religious holiday,
did not enter our calendar in isolation. They were not simply inserted into a

blank calendar in
want of religious holidays. These holidays are replacements for

other holydays
that were once part of a biblically based calendar of celebration and worship.

What Constantine did
for the empire on a grand scale had already begun centuries earlier on a

smaller scale.
Namely, the transformation of the traditions of the early church.

The traditions of the
first century church, which were closest to the teachings and practices of its

founder, Christ, were
very Jewish. Or, more accurately put, very biblical. The church Jesus,
the

original apostles,
and Paul (all Jews) built was for the most part a continuation of Yahweh

worship as practiced
by the Old Testament faithful. The traditions and celebrations were largely

the same, but now
enlivened by the life and resurrection of the very Son of God and his

Kingdom message. The
New Testament Sabbath, Passover, and Pentecost are clear examples

of the Savior’s
influence upon these ancient celebrations. Christ added greatly to their sacred

traditional meanings
by his miraculous appearance as God's Son in human flesh, his death and

resurrection, and by
his call to us for sonship and eternal life. Please understand, these

celebrations were not
the exclusive property of the Jews, as Christ reminded the Pharisees;

rather, like the
Sabbath, these are God's and he made them for all mankind -- especially for his

spiritual people, the
Church (Lk 2:27).

Worship on Sunday,
and Saturnalia and Ishtar (Easter) celebrations were not found in the early

church of Christ and
the Apostles. Instead of coming from Babylon, the religious calendar of the

early (can we say
"the not yet corrupted") church came from Genesis and Exodus and the rest

of Torah
(meaning God’s teaching/instruction). It is this venerable, ancient, and
biblical tradition

that was exchanged in
the centuries following Christ for a far inferior religious tradition.

This new
tradition, which of course was also an ancient tradition among the idolatrous
pagan

world, was gaining
some acceptance by the close of the first century as Christianity rapidly

expanded into the
Roman Empire. In the third and fourth centuries a new church began to

emerge; one that was
Hellenistic, gentile dominated, and contained a syncretistic blend of

pagan and biblical
practices. In name it was Christian; in many of its practices, neo-pagan.

What Constantine did
when he declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire
was not "outlaw" the practices of Saturnalia , but rename them to make the
exchange easy.

By his time, a
similar transition into these practices within the church was well under way.
The church of Jesus and the Apostles, now centuries later, had a totally
different look, tradition, and calendar.

Was it even the same
church? This transformation should not be considered progress.

Let’s look more
closely at the other part of this equation which has brought our modern culture

these
Roman/Babylonian holidays. What were the festivals of the early church that were

replaced? As we
briefly mentioned above, there exists a rich biblical history of God’s people,
in

Old Testament times
as well as in the early church, celebrating a totally other set of religious

holidays/holydays.
These were not the religious festivals of sun-worshipping pagans, but "the

Feasts of God."

History records that
these biblical festivals (Sabbath, Days of Unleavened Bread, Passover,

Pentecost, Trumpets,
Atonement, Tabernacles) were deliberately set aside by later church

officials in favor of
"baptized" pagan holidays. The motive? There are probably several, but an

important one among
many 2nd-4th century church leaders was an abiding anti-Jewish bias and

the desire to unlink
the new Christian religion from its Jewish/Old Testament foundation. For

over a century
leaders debated the Passover/Easter question. The quartodeciman
controversy

which festered during
the second century is a case in point. Quartodeciman means fourteenth,

the day on which
Passover was celebrated according the Hebrew calendar. Irenaeus (115-202

AD), who was taught
by Polycarp, John’s disciple, fought for a fourteenth day of Nisan

observance, "arguing
that the practice was an old one in western Asia Minor that went back to

the time of the
apostles" (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, Editor,
Garland

Publishing, NY, 1990,
p.107).

Irenaeus was a
powerful fighter against Gnosticism in the early

church and is
regarded as the first great Catholic theologian. Later Emperor Constantine, the

same one who brought
us Christmas, summoned the council of Nicaea in 325 AD to do the

business of
establishing a uniform observance throughout the empire of Easter on a Sunday.

One of his purposes
was to do away with the still lingering practice of observing the Passover.

To insure that Easter
in no way could harmonize with the "Jewish" Passover (which is the day

on which captive
Israel was spared by the lamb’s blood and on which Christ was crucified, both

events integral to
Salvation History), church officials devised a rotating date for Easter, the

substituted
celebration for the biblical Passover. They did this by concocting an elaborate

calendar formula
pegged to Passover that would never allow the two celebrations to occur on

the same day. Such
was the bitter bias against the early church’s "Jewish" traditions. It also

forced the remaining
Passover observing Christians, of which there were many, to forever

choose which
tradition would be theirs. Active persecution of those that didn’t bend to
Rome’s

direction followed.

This important
historical story should be told side by side with the one Dr. Dobson summarizes

for us. We will save
a more detailed recounting of it for another time.

From the first
century on, Christians have had options concerning the days they choose to

celebrate. They could
observe the "baptized" pagan events or they could celebrate the biblical

festivals -- but not
both. I say not both because we are discussing two different and opposite

traditions -- poles
apart. The biblical festivals came directly from God and were part of his plan

for his people’s
worship -- his way for their coming to know him and his plan. In fact, these
days

came from the mind of
God and are his unique creation. From creation onward they

memorialize the
mighty works of Yahweh -- past, present, and future. The prime way for the

created to come to
know its Creator is by what he has said and done. The biblical celebrations

enshrine that
fundamental information in annual remembrances done as celebrations.

The holidays
mainstream Christianity got in the exchange for these noble biblical events,
came

be. We all make
choices, some good, some not. Choosing a religious calendar of celebrations

based on pagan
deities over one based on the Bible and the One True God, is by any measure

a bad exchange.
Trading precious and stunningly beautiful jewels of truth by the whole carats,

for fables,
made-in-China plastic Santas and nativity scenes with light bulbs in them, is a
bad

deal.

Then why have so many
intelligent and well-meaning Christians made just such an exchange?

Ignorance of the
facts might explain the most of it, but there is as well this fact of human
nature:

It is easier to go
along to get along. Emperor Constantine figured that out. Baptizing paganism

may be good,
strategic public policy to "convert" an empire, but is it good theology? Is it a
good

exchange? Consider
the exchange: An enlightened, unique package of biblical days which tell

the orderly story of
God’s Grand Plan of Salvation, exchanged for days that must be constantly

separated from their
pagan baggage.

Dr. Dobson and many
fine Christians like him work hard to put a Christian spin to Christmas,

and they do a good
job. And for their good intentions, I applaud them. But we should go beyond

good intentions.
There is a more God-centered option that affords us all the benefits of family

togetherness around
festive holiday seasons, while teaching the uncorrupted and pure message

of salvation. If you
would like to know more about the biblical festivals write us for Dr. Charles

Dorothy’s article
Rediscovering Biblical Celebrations.

It is time we
Christmas-keeping Christians stand back and take a careful look at what we
have rejected in favor of what we have accepted. The wily Emperor’s
present of Christmas
doesn’t fit true Christianity -- it should be returned for a refund.

August 31, 2011

The Way to
Happiness

How many of us know people who are always
complaining about their day and just can’t seem to find happiness in anything?
They may have the “perfect” family, or job, but for some reason there is
something missing for them. They develop negative feelings about all areas of
their life. Some people turn to illegal drug use, some to food or other
“mindless” activities in their search for that elusive “something” that will
bring happiness.

Then there are
those who never seem to have a bad day. They always seem to be on top of the
world… and you wonder how they do it. This is the category we would all like to
be in, but just how do we get there?

In one of my old
Prevention magazines, there is an article on maximizing joy, or happiness.
Some of the suggestions they make for increasing joy are right out of the
Bible. First, notice what’s RIGHT in a situation, don’t focus on what is wrong…
or, put another way, think on things that are good. It fits! Philippians 4:8
reads, “Whatever things are true…noble… just… pure… lovely… of good report, if
there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy, meditate on these
things.” Don’t focus on the mistakes the kids make when they are helping with
chores, but on the good they are doing… the praiseworthy! Overlook the things
your spouse forgot to do and focus on those things that were remembered.
If you focus on the things that are wrong, you will not experience happiness,
but frustration and discouragement, which can lead to depression.

Another thing that
leads to happiness is gratitude. Being grateful… and expressing that
gratefulness… is key. Consider maintaining a “Gratitude Journal” with the
instruction that each night you write down three things that happened that day
that you're grateful for. At first this exercise is difficult… you can’t write
the same three things every day, so you have to start being aware of the
“blessings” in your life. You begin to see things you may not have noticed
before, such as the beautiful blue sky after a rain storm, the “close call”
while driving (see, God was protecting you!), yes, and when your kids remember
to put the dishes away and pick up their things from the living room that’s
something to be grateful for too. In the Prevention article, they
mentioned a study which shows that those who regularly recorded the things they
were grateful for showed more optimism, enthusiasm, attentiveness and energy,
and they felt better about their life as a whole. There are a lot of benefits
to being grateful! And it also brings you closer to God… He may not need to
hear about how grateful we are, but WE benefit immensely by telling him!

Of course being
kind… and showing that kindness to others is important. When we focus our
attention outward toward others rather than always thinking about our needs and
our lives, it helps us to see things from a different angle. Many times our
“problems” disappear when put in perspective. And the physical act of doing for
others has a positive effect on us as well… and that includes giving others a
smile! “Putting on a happy face” has been shown to increase happiness. Just
the act of smiling, even if you don’t really feel like it, can be the boost
someone else needs… and can help you feel happier. According to Jewish thought,
feelings follow actions, so if you “act” like you are happy, the “feeling” of
happiness will follow.

Noticing the positive
rather than the negative in a situation, being grateful for everything, showing
kindness in large and small ways, and putting on a happy face, these are all
stepping stones to help us grow, to bring us closer to the relationships our
Father in heaven wants us to have… with our family, friends, co-workers… and
with Him. Every day is another chance to grow and move closer to Him. So
remember, look for what is good in a situation, show your gratitude, pass on the
kindness… and smile! Every day can be filled with the happiness God wants for
us. --Ken Westby

August 11, 2011

Post-Christian
Chaos

If Britain’s barbaric youths had
been raised with the Judeo-Christian ethic, they probably wouldn’t have rioted.
The problem in England is not politics, race, youth, or even class - its values.
The world in general is facing a values crisis. Values, or the lack of same,
drive everything in the chaotic modern world.

Destroying property,
stealing, looting, arson, assault and the manifestation of the mob mentality
reflect a paucity of values. Values override the concerns of class warfare,
partisan politics and self-interest. When properly positioned in one’s life,
values trump everything. They represent a governor on behavior that determines
what one will, or will not do. People who have internalized high values exercise
noble character even under duress, or when no one is watching. People with low
or ignoble values give in to their animal instincts under the least provocation.

A headline in Mail
Online (August 10, 2011) identified one of the major influences in creating
the kind of people who commit such horrors: “Years of liberal dogma have spawned
a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalized youngsters.” A
female looter told a reporter that her looting showed the “rich” and the police
that “we can do what we want.”

What they wanted was
the random destruction of property, the burning of vehicles and the terrorizing
of neighborhoods and communities. Why did they want to do such irresponsible,
destructive things? To relieve their boredom, create excitement and wield some
sort of power. Max Hastings, in the aforementioned Mail article describes
Britain’s rioters as having “no moral compass that would make them susceptible
to guilt or shame.” Like I said - it’s a matter of values or the lack thereof.
Continues Hastings, “Most have no jobs to go to or exams they might pass. They
know no family role models, for most live in homes in which the father is
unemployed, or from which he has decamped.”

“They are,” says
Hastings, “essentially wild beasts.” They are rabid wolf packs roaming once
civilized streets in a nation that was known for its advanced social
development. Too borrow a phrase from the Bible, “Destruction and misery are in
their ways.” (Romans 3:16). They know nothing about responsible living.

How did this happen?

Hastings cites “liberal dogma” as
a major cause. It is such dogma that has created the welfare state. In earlier
times, Britain dealt with its troublesome underclass with capital punishment and
deportation to the colonies (like Australia). Today it is subsidized by “the
dole.”

Furthermore, there
are no governors on feral behavior. No measures are in place that would
effectively deter this wanton barbarism. Like the girl cited above said, “We can
do what we want.” Authorities, including schools, the police, the judiciary and
even Parliament, according to Hastings, all too often take the part of the
perpetrators instead of the victims.

What’s to be done?

Writes Hastings, “Only education
- together with politicians, judges, policemen and teachers with the courage to
force feral humans to obey rules the rest of us have accepted all our lives -
can provide a way forward and a way out for these people.” These young
barbarians need incentives for good behavior and swift punishment for bad. They
need the restoration of moral authority in their lives. A verse from the Bible
applies here: “…the fact that the sentence imposed for evil deeds is not
executed swiftly…is why men are emboldened to do evil…” Ecclesiastes 8:11, JT.

Fear of punishment is
a motivator for good behavior. Appeasement, mollycoddling and the subsidization
of sloth has the opposite effect. Writes Dennis Prager, “…the human desire to
reject the primacy of values is deep.

“The reason? As soon
as we hold values responsible for human conduct, we must hold people, ourselves
included, responsible for the bad that we do,” Think A Second Time, page
158.

Facing down evil
takes moral courage. Evil unopposed grows. Unless we resist it now - unless we
repeal the “liberal dogma” that is behind it - we will surely succumb to it. Our
Western cultures need a values revolution - a return to the Judeo-Christian
ethic that helped build the most civilized nations in history. --Brian Knowles

March 17, 2011

Too Many People?Yes, according to the
zero-population-growth crowd. These "man-haters" all drink from the same
polluted liberal pond of stagnant ideas. Mankind is regarded at the ultimate
spoiler of pristine nature. How dare we humans leave our footprint on nature's
planet. How dare we multiply and fill-up the earth. Among this crowd are the
eugenicists who hide behind nice-sounding family planning placards and
billboards promoting contraception. They are radicals who believe we need to
save the earth by reducing its population by a few billion. Just how we go about
that isn't made clear, but the self-loathing contempt for humans having children
is palpable. Thankfully they are a minority in the greater Mother
Earth/environmentalist movement, but their attitude permeates much of the
movement. If you wonder who some of these people are, you can identify them by
there continual use of the word "sustainable."

These folks are the self-appointed arbiters of what is "enough"
and what constitutes "sustainable" levels of human population, use of resources,
carbon dioxide, etc. These are the elite who know better than the rest of us and
are destined to rule the masses by the laws of evolution--the survival and
superiority of the fittest. They are the most fit to tell the masses what to
eat, where to live, how to travel, how many children to have, and how to vote.
They know what is "sustainable" for the environment.

Well, this year earth's population will pass 7,000,000,000...seven billion!
How big is that number? As the folks at National Geographic Magazine illustrate:
"Don't even try to count to seven billion. Even if each number took just a
second to say (and you didn't lose your place), getting there would take more
than two centuries." (And our government is
pilling up trillion dollar deficits!) So when is there going to be
enough people? Certainly, that is not for anyone but the Owner of the earth
to decide. So far He has remained silent on the population question. The last
global command Yahweh gave regarding population was to Noah after the flood:
"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, 'Be fruitful and increase
in number and fill the earth'" (Genesis 9:1). This is similar to the
command given to Adam and Eve at the beginning of the human race.

Just when will God consider the earth filled up?
Truly, no one knows. Scientists and demographers can give ideas and projections
on how much population the earth could support. But all such projections depend
on human behaviors more than on the planet's ability to provide material for
food and shelter. Ignorance, corrupt governments, war, socialism, communist,
despotism and the like are what cause shortages, famine, disease, and want. The
earth has the capacity to support many times this year's seven billion people
with plenty of food left over to export to Mars. Talk of shortages and limited
resources is the grist of those playing a zero-sum game. They don't see that the
greatest resource the earth has is its people. People made in the Image of God.
People with immense capacities for creating new wealth, discovering new sources
and inventing new technologies and solutions to problems.

All that is needed is to turn these billions of
humans lose to develop their God-given potential and talents. All they need is
good education, freedom, and the ability to profit from the labor of their own
hands without corrupt governments and religions enslaving them. If that sounds
utopian, it probably is--at least on a world-wide scale. Yet, we see how this
human-capital-prosperity can work in nations on earth right now. Which nations?
The nations people are trying to enter as they flee from their native corrupt
countries. Are not people fleeing to Western Europe and the USA and other
nations of the Judeo-Christian heritage? Why? The reasons are obvious: freedom,
opportunity, civilization, safety, and the prospect of prospering and being able
to keep it.

What would this earth look like if it had the kind
of freedom described above. Imagine the prosperity, happiness, and creativity
that would explode upon an earth without wars and corrupt governments and
religions. That is exactly what the Kingdom of God will bring our weary planet.
Call it the Millennium, the Day of the Lord, the Second Coming, the Reign of
God, it is the time of the return to Paradise with God on earth. When will God
declare that there are "enough" people on earth? The fact is, God loves people
and wants them to fulfill their created destiny to become fully in His Image.
His plan calls for every human who has ever existed to have the opportunity to
do so. He will even resurrect those from past millennia to live again in the new
world he will make and give them the freedom to chose how they want to live and
under whose leadership they want to live. God is not nervous about how things
will turn ultimately out.

Here is a thought test. Why did God make hundreds
of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars and innumerable
planets and moons? We are talking hundreds of trillions of giant stars and star
systems. Why so many? Isn't that too many? Don't those numbers of exploding
nuclear reactor stars threaten the sustainability of the cosmos? Is God
laughing? Let's face it, God thinks big and he has big plans for those he has
made in his image. We would be smart to learn more about God and what his plan
is. --Ken Westby

March 2, 2011

Unity or Uniformity? (Nehemia
Gordon is a Torah teachers living in Jerusalem. He will be a presenter at our
coming One God Seminar in Pasadena, May 28-29--Ed)
God's people are re-awakening all around the world to his truth but not everyone
is ready, willing, or able to the same degree or at the same pace. God waited
twenty-four years before revealing to Abraham the commandment of circumcision.
Don't be so quick to circumcise your neighbor or condemn him for not being where
you are in your walk with God. Let God speak to him in his own time when he is
ready.

Many people call for "unity" but what they really mean is "uniformity". They
claim unity is important to them but reject everyone who doesn't agree with
their understanding of Scripture. Unity can and must be achieved even when there
is a lack of uniformity. This requires a certain degree of spiritual maturity
and humility. It is only human that we get frustrated when others do not see
things our way. But we must be humble before the Almighty and ask him to lead us
on our walk with him. If those who walk alongside us in faith approach Yehovah
with the same humility then it is not for us to judge them. We should be united,
not divided, by our love of our heavenly Father and desire to live by His Word.

I got some real insight into unity last week when Keith Johnson and I were down
in Egypt. Unless you've been serving on a deep-water submarine or stuck in
Canada, then you know Egypt is a country still recovering from thirty years of
rule by a brutal dictator. Keith and I had the opportunity to sit down with
several Bedouin men in Nuweiba on the shore of the Red Sea, where the Israelites
crossed over from slavery into freedom. I asked them what they thought of the
overthrow of Mubarak. One young man was nostalgic about the fallen dictator
insisting that as bad as he was, at least there was "unity" under his rule. This
young Bedouin man has never known the basic freedoms many of us take for
granted. He was terrified by the "division" that now racks his country. I
realized that political tyranny creates unity at the cost of freedom just as
spiritual tyranny creates unity at the cost of truth and the individual's
relationship of faith with God.

"What does YHWH require of you? To do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk
humbly with your Elohim?" (Micah 6:8).

A little government and a
little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.

Those wise words were spoken by the
political humorist P. J. O'Rourke who also said: "Giving money and power to
government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." Those of us
living in the democracies of the West are plagued by profiteering politicians,
corrupt media, and compromised courts. Yet for all the financial mess we see in
places like Wisconsin and California, our worst woes are but a restful picnic in
the park compared to what is going on in Egypt and Libya and twenty other crazed
Muslim countries. But if we take our freedom and prosperity for granted by
killing the Golden Goose of Judeo-Christian culture and economics, we can
decline and fall into the pit of failed nations. America has no permanent lease
on power and prosperity.

There is a political fight underway
between factions that want to preserve the free capitalistic system that has
allowed human creativity to thrive and America rise to greatness, and the
faction that wants to cook the Golden Goose for dinner, spend like fools,
redistribute wealth, fatten government, and promise a socialistic utopia. That
assessment may seem stark and overdrawn, but I believe this is where the lines
are drawn. At root are two different view of human nature. The one wants minimum
government, maximum personal freedoms and markets to do business, and respects
and wants to preserve traditional values. Human beings thrive with freedom,
opportunity, property, and are best civilized by religious values and law and
order based on those values. The other faction sees no ultimate truths, has an
evolutionary view that human nature can be perfected by reeducation including
what is called political correctness, sees economics as zero-sum game thus
needing strong central government to distribute opportunities, markets, jobs and
goods "fairly." The former feeds and cares for the Golden Goose. The latter
thinks golden eggs can be produced by government bureaucratic control freeing
the elite sit down to eat the Golden Goose.

This verse always comes to mind when I
think of putting faith in political promises: "Do not put your trust in
princes, in mortal man, who cannot save" (Psalm 146:3). P. J. O'Rourke has a
more colorful and earthy way of expressing the same idea and captures the
frustration that many a voter must feel seeing the way blood-sucking politicians
play the game.

"The American political system is
like a gigantic Mexican Christmas fiesta. Each political party is a huge piňata--a
papier mȃché
donkey, for example. The donkey is filled with full employment, low interest
rates, affordable housing, comprehensive medical benefits, a balanced
budget, and other goodies. The American voter is blindfolded and given a
stick. The voter then swings the stick wildly in every direction, trying to
hit a political candidate on the head and knock some sense into the silly
bastard."

O'Rourke wrote those prescient words
back in 1991 (Parliament of Whores--A Lone Humorist Attempts to
Explain the Entire U.S. Government, Atlantic Monthly Press, 1991). If it
were true in '91 it is oppressingly true today. There are ways to promote
prosperity while still controlling the excesses of greed and power, and the
system of free enterprise with minimal democratic government has done a pretty
good job of it for almost 240 years. Our Founders sought a system that would
bring out the best in human ambition while keeping its excesses at bay. They
also realized that for it to truly work citizens needed personal morality best
gotten from their religious beliefs. There is a delicate balance here. America's
success is not a lark or an accident. I think God had a powerful hand in
blessing this land and he no doubt approved of that approach toward governing
humans made in his image. God is free and he loves freedom and made man free to
make his own choices. Good choices produce good results. Bad choices produce bad
results.

Today we are seeing bad results and
the delicate balance is threatened. Pray that our leaders and the people who
vote for them consider what made our nation free and prosperous. History has a
pit of failed nations led by fools. How should we pray? Paul gives us the answer
in 1 Timothy 2:1-5. --Ken Westby

January 23, 2011

Pre-Adamic Man?In his response to an on-going
discussion on Genesis and "old earth vs young earth" arguments the subject of
pre-adamic creation came up. Below are Noel Rude's comments. As always, your
comments pro or con are welcomed. --Editor

Actually,

When I say understanding Genesis is
important, I do not mean that it’s of top importance for those who already
believe and serve God. I only say it should be a top priority thing
for the Judeo-Christian world in general. The justification given for our
post-Judeo-Christian situation is that Genesis got it wrong and
Darwin got it right. Both sides of that equation—in complete violation of
the First Amendment—have become the state religion of the United States.
That is the operating principle in the universities, the public schools, the
media, the courts, the bureaucracy, the current President, and anyone who
defies it will be completely marginalized. It is for this reason that
intelligent design is on the cutting edge of the Work of God at this time.
Understanding Genesis is of similar importance, but there is currently no
discussion of it on a par with intelligent design. There are only the
scholarly works of those who consider Genesis myth, and the maintenance of
sectarian positions among marginalized believers.

Now as for death—the orthodox Christian
view is that “death entered” with Adam, that before that there was no such
thing—not even the death of a mosquito, let alone the dinosaurs. It is for
this reason, I’m told, that evangelicals so fiercely defend the Young Earth
position. Mainstream Christianity isn’t concerned because to them it is all
myth. But if we are going to argue with the YECs [young-earth creationists]
we’re going to have to argue with their interpretation of Romans 5, and with
what they call “the Fall”. Mostly they believe that Adam was created
immortal and that he lost his immortality in “the Fall”.
For insight into the orthodox Christian take on these things I recommend
William A. Dembski’s
The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World.
Aside from a PhD in mathematics from the University of Chicago,
Dembski also holds an MDiv in theology from the Princeton Theological Seminary
and a PhD in philosophy from the University of
Illinois at Chicago. He is second to none in regard to intelligent design,
but he won’t deviate from the orthodox doctrines of historic Christendom.

But what if death is essential in a
dynamic material world, that new life implies the passing away of the old,
and therefore most creatures have built in clocks to determine their life
spans. These are philosophical and scientific questions. We look at the
world and ask: Could it be any other way? Yes, it could be better. But is
its overall essence, as it says, “very good”? And because God has been
around for a very long time, why put him out of a job for most of that
time? There is no reason to believe that there are not an unlimited number
of planets out there just like ours, splendorous in beauty and teeming with
life. And why not intelligent life also? Do we know whether we are—as
intelligent physical beings—alone in the Universe? No, we don’t know—not
unless you can show me from the Bible. You might have a look at David
Berlinski’s Was there a Big Bang?

Now if the paleontological evidence is
clear and man long predates Adam whom biblical chronology puts only some six
millennia in the past, then we might ask with David, “What is man, that thou
art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?” David gets
his answer from Genesis (Psalms 8:5-9): “For thou hast made him a little
lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou
madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all
things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the
field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever
passeth through the paths of the seas. O LORD our Lord, how excellent is
thy name in all the earth!”

Ruling over the creatures is a messianic
metaphor first found in Genesis: “And God blessed them, and God said unto
them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and [fill] the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Even if only local,
Adam’s seed was nevertheless destroyed in the Flood, and so God renewed the
covenant with Noah and his sons (Gen 9:1-2): “And God blessed Noah and his
sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and [fill] the earth.
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the
earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the
earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they
delivered.”

It is no wonder that both David and Paul
saw in Adam the messianic office. It’s there also in Isaiah 11.

“And there shall come forth a rod out of
the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit
of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the
spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the
LORD; And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and
he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the
hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and
reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth:
with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the
wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness
the girdle of his reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the
leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the
fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the
bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion
shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of
the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall
be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. And in
that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of
the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.”

The big deal in Scripture is not man
ruling over the beast—it is Israel and Israel’s messiah ruling over the
nations.

And so if that was Adam’s purpose—then
maybe Adam was not the first human being—rather Adam was created to rule in
place of the fallen angels—as his seed is yet destined (Heb 2:5), “For
unto the angels hath [God] not put in subjection the world to come, whereof
we speak.”

OK, we know
that the scientists are biased in favor of Darwin, but don’t we also know
that the biblical exegetes are just as biased in favor of sectarian
tradition—be it either the old Christendom or the new accommodation to
Darwin? What we want is the truth from both books—the book of nature and
the book of Israel. There are honest folks out there and it is possible to
move beyond our biases. But it’s probably not possible for an organized
body to do this—be it the National Science Foundation or the Institute for
Creation Research.

Anyway that’s
my early morning Spiel. Now for some coffee.

--Noel

PS: Being made in the image of God
should probably be defined on several levels. There is physical form and
moral accountability via the gift of language. On another level it seems to
mean rulership over the nations (Gen 1:26): “And God said, Let us make man
in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish
of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

God is foremost a
creator and ruler, and being made in his image involves those things. Here,
let me quote from Asaf Inbari in AZURE (2000) “Towards Towards a Hebrew Literature” (http://inbari.co.il/en_hebrew1.htm):

The biblical God is not
something, as were the ma'at, brahman and moira-but
someone; not a "Supreme Being" or the "Absolute," not the
"Unlimited" (apeiron) of Anaximander, or the "Idea of Ideas"
of Plato, the "Unmoved Mover" of Aristotle, the "One" of Plotinus,
or any other monist abstraction. God is not the law, but the
lawmaker. He is the Master of the Universe, and his sovereignty is
manifest in history.

This meshes with the following from
Isaac Newton:

This Being governs all things,
not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account
of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God παντοκράτωρ,
or Universal Ruler. For God is a relative word, and
has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God
not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul
of the world, but over servants. The supreme God is a Being eternal,
infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without
dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your
God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords;
but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of
Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my
Perfect: These are titles which have no respect to servants. The
word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not
a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a
God; a true, supreme or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme or
imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows, that the true
God is a Living, Intelligent, and Powerful Being; and from his other
perfections, that he is Supreme, or most Perfect.

Greco-Roman Christianity defined God
ontologically—as an essence (οὐσία
or substantia), the Hebrew Bible describes him as an agent, an actor,
a great king and ruler of his vast creation.

January 7, 2011

The Way to
Happiness

How many of us know people who are always
complaining about their day and just can’t seem to find happiness in anything?
They may have the “perfect” family, or job, but for some reason there is
something missing for them. They develop negative feelings about all areas of
their life. Some people turn to illegal drug use, some to food or other
“mindless” activities in their search for that elusive “something” that will
bring happiness.

Then there are those who never seem to have
a bad day. They always seem to be on top of the world… and you wonder how they
do it. This is the category we would all like to be in, but just how do we get
there?

In one of my old Prevention
magazines, there is an article on maximizing joy, or happiness. Some of the
suggestions they make for increasing joy are right out of the Bible. First,
notice what’s RIGHT in a situation, don’t focus on what is wrong… or, put
another way, think on things that are good. It fits! Philippians 4:8 reads,
“Whatever things are true…noble… just… pure… lovely… of good report, if there is
any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy, meditate on these things.”
Don’t focus on the mistakes the kids make when they are helping with chores, but
on the good they are doing… the praiseworthy! Overlook the things your spouse
forgot to do and focus on those things that were remembered. If you
focus on the things that are wrong, you will not experience happiness, but
frustration and discouragement, which can lead to depression.

Another thing that leads to happiness is
gratitude. Being grateful… and expressing that gratefulness… is key. Consider
maintaining a “Gratitude Journal” with the instruction that each night you write
down three things that happened that day that you're grateful for. At first
this exercise is difficult… you can’t write the same three things every day, so
you have to start being aware of the “blessings” in your life. You begin to see
things you may not have noticed before, such as the beautiful blue sky after a
rain storm, the “close call” while driving (see, God was protecting you!), yes,
and when your kids remember to put the dishes away and pick up their things from
the living room that’s something to be grateful for too. In the Prevention
article, they mentioned a study which shows that those who regularly recorded
the things they were grateful for showed more optimism, enthusiasm,
attentiveness and energy, and they felt better about their life as a whole.
There are a lot of benefits to being grateful! And it also brings you closer to
God… He may not need to hear about how grateful we are, but WE benefit immensely
by telling him!

Of course being kind… and showing that
kindness to others is important. When we focus our attention outward toward
others rather than always thinking about our needs and our lives, it helps us to
see things from a different angle. Many times our “problems” disappear when put
in perspective. And the physical act of doing for others has a positive effect
on us as well… and that includes giving others a smile! “Putting on a happy
face” has been shown to increase happiness. Just the act of smiling, even if
you don’t really feel like it, can be the boost someone else needs… and can help
you feel happier. According to Jewish thought, feelings follow actions, so if
you “act” like you are happy, the “feeling” of happiness will follow.

Noticing the positive rather than the negative in a
situation, being grateful for everything, showing kindness in large and small
ways, and putting on a happy face, these are all stepping stones to help us
grow, to bring us closer to the relationships our Father in heaven wants us to
have… with our family, friends, co-workers… and with Him. Every day is another
chance to grow and move closer to Him. So remember, look for what is good in a
situation, show your gratitude, pass on the kindness… and smile! Every day can
be filled with the happiness God wants for us. (anon.)

November 15, 2010

Angels at work--above and belowThe writer is a friend and the director of
security for one of America's largest hotels.

I enjoyed the article at the web site on
God's Board Room [see home page]. I am hailed into a staff meeting
every Wed. morning at 10:00 and have to listen to the new and old business
of each department. Many times we discuss line employees and what is going
on with them in our departments. It is comforting to know and also awe
inspiring to think that YHWH may be sitting up there "in The Big Chair"
talking about me or my little family. We must be in somebody's department
and under someone's care, some "Department Head" or "Director."

I often refer to my guys and gals as the
Hotel's Protecting Angel's or watch dogs. Mostly the people don't see us,
even though we walk visibly among them. They have their eyes and minds on
"other matters" so they don't even see us pass by, unless they are injured
or in a desperate need of something. They never pause to consider that on
the other side of their Guest Room door some fellow or Gal walks the floors
at night maintaining the solitude and keeping watch over their safety.
That’s probably a commentary on the entire human race. Many hotels
don't maintain a Security Department because they feel like it’s a waste of
money or something unneeded, but in their own homes they have a big dog and
an alarm system. I know FATHER has a Security Force that patrols the halls
of humanity day and night. Thanks for bringing that into focus.... --
Anon.

October 8, 2010

Fornication Okay? In response to an article in
The Journal by John Sash in which the author questions whether "singles sex"
is sinful or included in the commandment against adultery, Noel Rude offers
these thoughts.

Mr. John Sash’s
provocative piece in THE JOURNAL (Issue No. 140, July 31, 2010) cries out for
comment, but then who wants to be seen as an expert on—fornication. In any
event Mr. Sash is to be commended for stirring the pot, for how much study is
there if we never hear anything controversial?

Mr Sash says, “For the next three days, try as I might I could not think of one
logical reason (apart from the Bible) that it was wrong for a single person to
have sex.”

What!?

You haven’t noticed the devastation wrought by the sexual
revolution? You aren’t aware of abortion—the sacrament of the seculars—and the
majority of children of certain social classes and ethnicities now born out of
wedlock and caught up in crime and rotting in our prisons?

Our
betters—those with elite educations and societal
sway—believe in and mouth the mantras of the sexual revolution even as
they themselves often live Spartan lives and thus avoid the consequences of the
ideas they espouse. Illegitimacy and divorce have lower rates among the highly
educated, just as good diet and vigorous exercise are more prevalent among
them. It’s like the reverse of the Victorian era when the elites championed
chastity but often themselves fell short, yet they believed in keeping their
indiscretions secret lest the citizenry be corrupted. Now the elites corrupt
the citizenry and protect themselves from the ravages they have unleashed.

Mr. Sash says: “My mother taught me that all sex was bad if you weren’t married.
She learned it from the puritanical church she then attended, which got it from
puritanical preachers hundreds of years ago who beat, scourged, branded,
tormented, humiliated and burned enough women to know what they were talking
about.”

How awful!! Yet aside from said extremes, why might society once
have taught against premarital sex? Why, to protect women! to avoid shotgun
marriages, the corruption of abortion, the travesty of lost youth and the
devastation of today’s inner city. I suppose if our author had gone on to “have
a relationship” with this woman she would have gone on the pill—but what were
our girls expected to do before The Sixties?

The sexual revolution not only abused women and killed off much
of the next generation through abortion, it emasculated men. Now men even talk
in a higher pitch. Let the older reader remember.

Yes the law has its weightier matters. Who says that premarital
sex is as bad as adultery, sodomy, or bestiality? Today’s libertines, of
course, champion all of these (see Peter Singer on bestiality) and will not rest
until we do too, but certainly most Americans throughout most of American
history have understood that white grades into gray before becoming black. It’s
the libertines who see no gray areas.

The sages say that the biblical narrative never moralizes, that
to see whether something is right or wrong, as for example Jacob’s guile or his
playing favorites with Joseph, you need to hear the rest of the story. If you
wish to learn the moral lesson, you should just read on and note the
consequences of the behavior in question.

Must everything be spelled out in black and white? The Proverb
says (Prov 1:20), “Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the
streets…”

Just look around you. It was our Puritan forebears who created
the most stable and most prosperous and most free of all societies. Compare
that with the venereal disease and illegitimacy and instability and crime and
poverty wherever fornication flourishes.

We might note that some laws were of Moses’ own making. Thus in
regard to Deuteronomy 24:1-3 Jesus said (Mar 10:5), “For the hardness of your
heart he wrote you this precept.” Jesus derived a lesson from the account of
the creation of Adam and Eve. But how do we know that God had not dictated the
law of divorce? Because there is no “Thus saith the LORD” in Deut 24, and
because of Jeremiah 3:1 where God quotes Moses: “They say, If a man put away his
wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her
again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?”

God goes on to say that when (verse 8) “backsliding Israel
committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce...”—just
as specified by Moses in Deut 24. God, however, hates divorce (Mal 2:16), and
God is also merciful (Jer 3:12-15): “Go and proclaim these words toward the
north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I
will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the
LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever. Only acknowledge thine
iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast
scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not
obeyed my voice, saith the LORD. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD;
for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a
family, and I will bring you to Zion: And I will give you pastors according to
mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.”

Yes, I know, Mr. Sash argues that there is a distinction between
those sexual sins that carry the death penalty (but which, by the way, might
also be forgiven—consider David) and those that do not, and that we not
stigmatize those who have transgressed the less weighty matters of our Puritan
heritage. Well and good. But let us also not forget how Paul warns those of us
nearing the end of the six millennia (2Tim 3:1-5): “This know also, that in the
last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own
selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents,
unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,
incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady,
highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of
godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” If you’re
wondering let me suggest that fornication and its attendant single motherhood
and delinquent fatherhood are not an insignificant factor in this prophesied
disaster.

The temptations today are greater than ever before. When the
elites pushed no fault divorce they mostly abstained but scores of our people
didn’t. Now that the sexual revolution stands at the cliff of utter
oblivion—there being no limit and no stopping its advocates—perhaps it is time
for some adult supervision. Maybe it’s better to position ourselves further
from the cliff than to edge up closer to the precipice.

There are areas
of moral law where God expected Moses to judge, which he did and which he did
appropriate to the times—thus the laws relating to polygamy and divorce,
“because of the hardness of your hearts” (Mat 19:8). In Deuteronomy the penalty for rape is
death if the woman is betrothed (Deut 22:25), but if she is not betrothed then
the rapist must pay the bride price and marry her with no possibility of divorce
(Deut 22:28-29). Could she refuse? Could she go on welfare?

Deut 22 speaks of rape. Is it then alright simply to seduce a
maiden? Or might we say that Exodus 22:16-17 actually forbids fornication in
the real sense of the English word? “And if a man entice a maid that is not
betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her
father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the
dowry of virgins.”

Moses himself takes a pretty dim view of siring children out of
wedlock. See Deuteronomy 23:2.

In Exodus 20-23 we have the words of the covenant of which God
says (Jer 7:22-23), “For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in
the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings
or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I
will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I
have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.” When it says (Heb 7:11), “If
therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood…for under it the people
received the law,” it cannot be referring to Exodus 20-23, because when Moses
came down from the mountain with the words of that law Aaron had just crafted a
golden calf. Hebrews is thus speaking of the law of the tabernacle which was
given after the Levites were made priests, after the sin of the golden calf.

And thus it appears to me that the original covenant as also
Moses forbade fornication.

If you suppose there was in that day a fornication free-for-all
with all its consequent unwed mothers and rampant illegitimacy, I suggest you
think again. Today such a situation flourishes because we empower the nanny
state to care for our widows and orphans, whereas in biblical times that was the
responsibility of the extended family and local community—witness the reaction
of Simeon and Levi when their sister “went out to see the daughters of the
land.” Was it rape or seduction? In one sense did it matter? Say what you
will but those two brothers stood up for their sister.

Not being any kind of authority on this subject I can only appeal
to the wisdom that cries out from the street. I assume some of our heavyweights
will weigh in on the biblical teaching and the relevant vocabulary. In the
meantime I wonder—if pornea doesn’t include fornication, what is the
biblical word for “have a relationship”?

Mr. Sash concludes: “I don’t think our children who may have slipped up in the
backseat of a car and then gone on to marry and have a wonderful family are the
same as murderers, sorcerers and idolaters who will be tossed into the lake of
fire.”

But if there’s a gray area here there are also two ditches—the
one where forgiveness is foreign and the other where judgmentalism is the
unpardonable sin. Mr. Sash seems to be contrasting his gray area with harsh
judgment all the while ignoring the moral depravity of the opposite ditch.

Let me suggest that God speaks out against the new morality on
two cardinal points: the breaking of covenants, and unnaturalness. Marriage is
a covenant and the sex drive is natural. Divorce is breaking a covenant and
sodomy is a perversion. Anything that in any way detracts on these two points
shades into sin.

Mr. Sash concedes: “Something in a gray area can be good or bad but not necessarily
totally right or totally wrong.” OK, and
what about other unmentionables that the Bible doesn’t mention? What about the biblical silence—if there is such a
silence—in regard to pedophilia? Anyone
want to argue for that as a gray area?

Must God spell out everything!? Or as the Proverb asks (Prov
8:1), “Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?”

July 1, 2010

JUST WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE BIBLE?

Noel Rude

Pendleton, Oregon

Below are random
comments generated by an article of the above title that appeared in THE JOURNAL, Issue No. 139 (Vol.
XIV, No. 2, June 17,
2010).[1]
The following appeared on page
10:

During the discussion
this writer for THE JOURNAL commented that young people
having grown up in a church environment go off to college and
encounter startling opinions and theories, philosophical and
theological,

they had never heard
before, and as a result many of them lose faith in the Bible and
God.

Therefore, what about a
discussion about the Bible itself?

Church of God and other
preachers constantly sermonize from the Bible and sometimes even
debate Bible subjects with other Christians.

But
rarely does a Church of God minister or scholar attempt to prove
specifically that the Bible is what Church of God writers and
preachers say it is: the inspired, infallible (some say inerrant)
Word of God.

So the debate occurred and I’d say that as a debates go Dennis
Diehl won—but not because I think his ideas have merit. Nobody seemed aware of
intelligent design.[2]

Believers sometimes refer to the Bible as
inerrant—which sounds suspiciously like
the proposal that (John 10:35) “the scripture cannot be broken”[3]—but
which is a pretty strong claim that few respectable scholars would make today.
Though the Bible makes such a strong claim, it has become de rigueur among
sophisticates to make no claims at all that could ever be proven false. On the
other hand there are those out on the margins that do proclaim inerrancy but
never put their exegesis of the Scriptures to the test.

Scientific theories, at least in the Popperian sense,[4]
are not theories unless they make bold predictions that could be refuted by
evidence. In serious science one begins with the strongest possible claim.
This, I believe, is how we should approach the Bible. For unless we are willing
to step out with bold claims that might be shot down and leave us embarrassed,
we will never really learn anything. Rather we will be, as Paul puts it, “Ever
learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Don’t Begin with a Weak Claim

If we do not begin with a strong claim of inerrancy, we will
never know whether such a claim might be true. But if we make the claim we can
weaken it and adjust as further research and facts demand.

Don’t get me wrong, however. I do not believe that there is such
a thing as “the scientific method.” Popper’s refutation works for theories;
mathematics, on the other hand, has no need of it. Theory is what physicists
do, biology is mostly just descriptive. Inerrancy is a theory and therefore it
should be put to the test.

Now—once we accept some form of inerrancy—then there is the
problem of which text. The Jewish view of the Massoretic text is supported by
Paul (Rom 3:2), “…because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”
But, as we know, the text of the New Testament is controversial. Some align
themselves with the Byzantine Majority camp, whereas at least in practice the
Church of God often would defer to the textual critics. In this instance I
think the Church was right. Bart D. Ehrman makes a pretty good case for
discernable corruption in the majority text.

But even here I think we should go with the strongest case for
inerrancy: Choose the reading you think coheres best but only when there is
textual evidence for it, otherwise do not emend the text. Matthew 1:18-25, for
me, is still problematic because it seems to contradict the Tanakh and
logic, and though there is evidence for the reading “and Joseph begat Jesus,”[5]
there is still the fact that in all manuscripts I know of Joseph seems to think
Mary has committed adultery. Interestingly in verse 20 the angel says, “…for
that which is begotten [γεννηθὲν]
in her is of the Holy Spirit.” The word implies being sired by a father, yet of
course the Holy Spirit is not the father, nor according to the Trinitarians was
God the Father of Jesus by contributing a sperm (however produced) to unite with
an egg in the womb of Mary—they do not accuse God of adultery. For them Mary
was a surrogate mother and the creeds speak of “the Father eternally generating
the Son”. Anyway I can’t emend the text, but I can suggest that either there
has been some corruption or that there is something there that I don’t
understand—the latter being the more likely.

One point of particular interest to me was the comment by Dennis Diehl:
“All the people that are related to Jesus in
the genealogies are not related to Jesus if God is Jesus’ literal Father. You
can’t have genealogies and the story of the virgin birth. They’re exclusive.
Either one stays or one goes.”

Ron Moseley wasn’t quite right when he responded, “In
Judaism it doesn’t matter who your father is—if your mother is a Jew—and it
gives Mary’s genealogy back to David.”
The rabbis don’t say that at all! They insist that the scepters (such as
David’s and Aaron’s) must be inherited through the father.[6]
And isn’t this implicit in Jeremiah 33?

The other question is content. Our theory of inerrancy is
strengthened if Scripture makes no outlandish claims, such as in the
contemporary pagan literature with its satyrs and minotaurs and other fantastic
beings. The Church fathers and also the rabbis take for granted the four
classical elements (earth, fire, water, air), which we now know to be a false
picture of reality. The New Testament never makes that mistake. The Bible
sometimes uses fantastic imagery, seven headed dragons and such, but always
symbolically.

Inerrancy is also strengthened by the internal coherence of
Scripture. Rudolf Bultmann insisted that pastors not assume coherence and
therefore should avoid “proof texting,” and sadly like sheep most respectable
pastors have complied. But why assume the negative? Why not first take the
Bible seriously for its claim that “all scripture is given by inspiration
of God”?

How will we ever know that the claim is false if we never put it
to the test?

The two central events of Scripture—the Exodus and the
Resurrection—do not appear to be subject to refutation nor perhaps to scientific
confirmation. How could you prove they never happened? And so the atheists
turned to Genesis which supposedly does make refutable claims, claims which
Richard Dawkins says have been refuted. Richard Dawkins is right when he says
that Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is scientific[7]—as
opposed to the mushy BioLogos Forum[8]
which claims that science and religion never the twain meet. At least Young
Earth Creationism (YEC) does stick its neck out and make claims that could be
proven wrong—which, as Richard Dawkins loudly trumpets, supposedly has
happened. In my opinion the YECs are blinded by an unwillingness to question
theological doctrines such as original sin and the fall of man which they see as
demanding the YEC position.[9]
It turns out the real reason they want a young earth is because all evil and
death is supposed to have entered the cosmos through Adam’s sin (Romans 5),
therefore the dinosaurs couldn’t have died before Adam sinned, etc.

But are there any real difficulties for the inerrantist? There
always are, of course, but no reason to throw in the towel. One difficulty that
remains unsolved for me at least is the “firmament” that was created on the 2nd
day in Genesis and which God called “heaven”. “Heaven” in Hebrew is equivalent
to our “sky”, and “firmament” is supposed to refer to something solid or
hammered out.[10]

I already believe that Genesis 1 is more prophecy than
history—that its historical sense is local (as in Genesis 2) but that it acts
out God’s plan for seven thousand years into the future—yet I’d like to believe
that God isn’t using a falsity to picture a truth. I don’t want to believe that
the Hebrews believed the firmament was solid, though interestingly the Indians I
work with believed just that—that the “sky” (túχɨn)
is a solid sheet above. In one myth they shoot arrows into it. So if it turns
out that the Hebrews believed the firmament to be solid then perhaps that’s no
worse then God using the imagery of Leviathan (in Isaiah 27:1 even with
vocabulary identical to that in a Ugaritic text[11]).
But I’m not ready to concede just yet that Genesis 1:6-8 & 14-19 pictures a
solid sky.

Modernists believe it’s all metaphor—except for trivialities it’s
always just meaningless metaphor—but that’s an oxymoron. The Bible’s metaphors
better mean something more than fluff or the proverbial “Don’t worry
everything’ll turn out OK.” Scripture better cohere and not only not say things
that are wrong, it should make predictions that confirm its validity. Those
predictions may be couched such that those without the spirit of God will miss
it, but it better be there for those with ears to hear.

Where would one start should he want to do a study of inerrancy?
One article I’d recommend—though it’s been a while now since I read it—is Bill
Dembski’s article in Dembski & Richards (2001). To me it seems that those who
opt out of any kind of inerrancy are really left with nothing but mush.

Yet once we
accept the Bible as the word of God there remains the question of
interpretation. Sjødal (2009) rejects the New Testament and rabbinical mode of
midrash, but fails to realize that the Prophets and Psalms employ it
too. Modernist scholars too refuse to take seriously this style of
interpretation. Moisés Silva, however, argues that we ourselves should return
to this kind of allegorical interpretation: [12]

If
we refuse to pattern our exegesis after that of the apostles, we are
in practice denying the authoritative character of their scriptural
interpretation—and to do so is to strike at the very heart of the
Christian faith.

What are the Consequences of Demoting the
Bible?

Is what some
call “bibliolatry” really a negative?[13]
I don’t think so. Ministers and laymen burned by Ezekiel 34 style corruption
and tired of know-nothing religious fanatics often forget that the battle for
the West has been won. Not for nothing do we call it the post-Christian West.
On this let me recommend Melanie Phillips’ recent
The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power.
Phillips herself is an agnostic, yet she writes (page 325), “Far from being in
opposition to religion, Western science actually depends on it—and, contrary to
much popular assumption, specifically on the Hebrew Bible.” She is alarmed by
the accelerating demise of reason and subsequent rise of anti-Semitism, “Indeed,
the history of thought since the Enlightenment might be summed up as man first
dethroning God in favor of reason, then dethroning reason in favor of man, and
finally dethroning man himself.” (pg. 303)

Western
civilization was tamed, not by Christendom, but by the Bible. Whenever
churchmen strayed from the Scriptures they were worse than the pagans. But in
the end their inquisitions and pogroms tended to be moderated by a return to the
Bible. Islam rejects the Bible and so doesn’t have that safety valve.
Secularism has no safety valve either.

Throw out the Bible and there is no way to hold on to our
historic belief in the sanctity of human life—just ask Peter Singer.[14]

I remember Mark
Falcoff[15]
(my Latin American History teacher—excellent teacher, by the way—he was later a
consultant for the Reagan administration) describing so eloquently how Bartolomé
de las Casas petitioned Carlos V regarding the Spanish mistreatment of the
Indians. Las Casas quoted Scripture whereas his opponent reasoned from
Aristotle.

The United
States has been great for one reason only, and that is the love and respect its
founders had for the Scriptures—a love and respect that remained strong until
recent times. The Scriptures, according some interesting articles by David
Gelernter in Commentary,[16]
played a much larger role in our founding than scholars realize, this in large
part because today’s scholars do not know the Scriptures and thus do not catch
the Scriptural language and imagery in the founders’ writings. We are limping
on the last legs of the moral capital of centuries of Bible reading, and now
those legs are buckling under, and when they have collapsed altogether there
will be no restraint whatsoever.

Larry Arnhart[18]
believes we can derive conservative values from Darwinism. He was kind enough
to exchange some emails with me some time back, but I have to say that besides
the fact that Darwinism finds no support in the book of Nature, it fares even
worse than the pagan gods when it comes to values.[19]

Ethics in
paganism has no connection to the gods. The Indians end their myths with, “Now
children let that be a lesson. Don’t ever do like the gods.” The Greco-Roman
or Nordic or Hindu gods were no better.

The difference
between biblical faith (the Judeo-Christian) and all others is its particularism
and exceptionalism—something that is passionately rejected today. God has
revealed himself—not to everyone but to a few through the ages—most notably the
patriarchs and those at Sinai and the five hundred or so who saw the risen
Jesus. Secularist or Islamic univesalism will not save us, rather the law will
yet go forth from Zion. Without the hope of the Scriptures there is no hope.

I have found
that after you dig to the bottom of the activist’s unease and the hater’s
hate—what they’re all really against is the Bible. Hitler even admitted this.[20]
He thought if he could do away with the Jews he would finally do away with the
Bible. This is the whole foundation of the International Left, of fascism and
Marxism and militant Islam and today’s Democratic Party. It isn’t so much
religion or deities or spirits or Islam that they passionately loath—it’s the
Bible.

God can hear
our prayers and we can see his hand in history and in our lives. But God does
not speak to us audibly. There is no knowledge of the God of Israel apart from
the Book that reveals him. Of those who had not been privy to the Bible Paul
says (Eph 2:12), “That at that time ye were without
Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the
covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world”.

That which
separates us from the beasts is human language, in other words, the word. It
makes possible our receiving of a verbal revelation from God. In my field we
define human language—as opposed to animal communication—as having the ability
to communicate complex information.[21]
The pagans mumble mantras but it’s not the truth they seek—their enlightenment
is nonverbal—it’s an experience on another level of consciousness. And now
postmodernism—which denies that language communicates anything but power
politics—has infiltrated ALL the humanities and much of the hard sciences.
Neither paganism nor atheistic nihilism provided the foundation for our Western
world, of its science and pursuit of knowledge, of the thinking that went into
our national founding. At the root of it all was the Bible.

But they don’t
like the biblical God because—aside from his strict moral code—they say he can
wipe out thousands in an instant and sometimes does. Yet the sugar and spice
god or gods of their imagination are utterly unrealistic. The reality is that
people are wiped out in an instant—in natural disasters and in sickness
and in wars and human cruelty—and standing by when you could stop it all is as
bad as instigating it in the first place. Here I think Art Mokorow gets it
right: “God did flood the world and kill everybody. But God cannot murder. The
reason He can’t murder is because He can resurrect you.” All death, in fact, is in one sense by
God’s design, for it is he who has made us mortal, as it says (Heb 9:27), “And
as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”.

Yes, there’s a book of Nature too. But it should be held at some
distance from the book of Scripture—which has been the genius of intelligent
design. Our physical environment doesn’t speak in plain words but rather in
brute physical facts to which we must apply reason. None of this can tell us
why we are here or the way out of our mess.

I’m a
mathematical realist (such as argued in Hersh 1999) and I believe in natural law
(such as argued in Budziszewski 2004), yet I don’t believe that is near enough.
Humans require a verbal revelation. The Gospel is framed in the written word
and “the foolishness of preaching” (Rom 10:14): “How then shall they call on him
in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they
have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”

As for
bibliolatry—note that it says, “and the word was God.” I take this in the
sense that the word is our judge (John
12:48): “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth
him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”

So let me take
issue with the notion that the Bible isn’t the word of God. What, pray tell,
other word of God do we have? The Bible may not contain all the word of God,
nevertheless it is the only word of God we have.

The Scripture (ἡ
γραφή) or
Scriptures (αἱ
γραφαὶ)
are referred to 51 times in the New Testament. “...and the scripture cannot be
broken,” John has Jesus say (John 109:35). Paul writes (2Tim 3:16), “All
scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”. Whatever is the
sophisticated thinking today, there can be no doubt that for Jesus and the
apostles the Old Testament was the Word of God.

But does the
Bible actually call itself the word of God? One place I can think of is
2Chronicles 34 where in the reforms of Josiah
they found the book of the Torah (סֵפֶר
הַתּוֹרָה)—verse 15. And thus they explained their misfortune (verse
21), “…because our fathers have not kept the word of
the LORD [אֶת־דְּבַר
יהוה / τῶν
λόγων
Κυρίου],
to do after all that is written in this book.”

Why should we
position ourselves before the fact against inerrancy? Why not at least
be agnostic? Or, if scientifically inclined and as I argued before, why not
take the high road? Weak theories are worthless—strong ones can be adjusted as
required.

I make three
suggestions: 1) Go with the strong horse—or rather theory; 2) Be willing to
adapt to facts as they arise; and 3) Know the consequences of joining today’s
culture in sloughing off the Bible.

I would argue
that the words of life that Jesus spoke (John 6:63, 68; etc.) were his
understanding of the Scriptures. The word came by Moses and the Prophets,
understanding Moses and the Prophets came by Jesus Christ.

Does the Bible Merely Contain the Word
of God

Whether the Bible
is the word of God or whether it contains that word—continues to
cogitate. It’s that slippery slope again, the one where we pick and choose and
in a couple of generations can’t agree on what we agreed on in the first place.
America was a Judeo-Christian nation and though deeply divided on “doctrine” was
nevertheless united on ethics—on the sanctity of life, marriage and the family,
the right to property, the rule of law—this whether Protestant, Catholic,
Evangelical, Jewish. That day is now past and it was the abandonment of the
Bible as our common heritage that opened the floodgates of utilitarian
materialism.

Bolstered by faith
in the scientific merit of Darwin’s creation myth it was easy to abandon the
Bible and believe that reason alone would provide us our ethics. Now the big
question for our top ethicists is defining personhood. Though nowhere is
the unborn a person, in Spain the chimpanzee now is. And there is serious
debate on whether to confer personhood on robots.[22]

Yes, some of those
smitten of materialism were nevertheless great biblical scholars, and they
proved no less ambitious in weaving together speculative stories than the
apostles and rabbinical sages whose authority they rejected.

Maybe that’s why I
liked reading these guys—at least they say something based on biblical motifs,
word connections and typologies. And though disrespectful of Scriptural
authority they knew the languages and noticed things that neither our
antifundamentalist churchmen nor those committed to church orthodoxy could ever
bring themselves to see.

The really
important things that we know we know provisionally, for who among us has
encountered God directly or returned from the World to Come? But that doesn’t
mean we should have no passion. We have passion because we know the secularist
alternative—humility because we know provisionally.

Dennis Diehl says,
“nt,
and I think it connotes more than “don’t misinterpret the text”. I think it
eschews any kind of inspiration, or any notion that the Bible could be a coded
book (which of course implies a divine hand). It means, “I’m wise enough to
determine what it never meant.”

From what Mr.
Diehl says it appears he would agree with Rudolf Bultmann,[23]
that we should expect no behind the scenes guiding hand giving coherence to the
whole Scriptural enterprise. Rather each passage must be interpreted only
in its immediate context (textual, historic, etc.). The Prophets contradict
Moses, the Gospels don’t harmonize, Paul cannot base his theology on Jesus’
teaching.

Mr. Diehl, I
think, took his interlocutors aback—he says the most in the fewest words and
they were not used to hearing such straight talk from a nonbeliever. They
didn’t want to think that what they were hearing was blasphemy. But there was
nothing new there—the Torah cobbled together by postexilic redactor(s) (though
Diehl suggested it happened in Babylon), Peter and Paul battling it out for
political hegemony, Paul lying about his Jewishness, etc. None of this is
new—all of it Mr. Diehl has absorbed from the culture.

Few, it seems,
survive the materialism of the academy. It isn’t always explicit but it’s
always there, however subtle and assumed without dispute. Should any challenge
arise it is dealt with swiftly and decisively, for there can be no compromise
whatsoever without risking the collapse of the whole house of cards. As Bill
Dembski has noted, not the tiniest aspect of ID can receive the slightest nod of
acceptance.[24]
The naïve student supposes he walks the hallowed halls of intellectual freedom,
and deep down even the dullest knows that none of the smart people respect the
Bible.

I’ve been reading
Jon D. Levenson—he’s a sort of Jewish N. T. Wright with his focus on the
resurrection. I recommend him but not to those whose faith is shallow. In his
earlier book he thinks YHWH originally commanded human sacrifice and to support
his point he sites, among other scriptures, Ezekiel 20:25,

וְגַם־אֲנִי
נָתַתִּי לָהֶם חֻקִּים לֹא טוֹבִים

καὶ ἐγὼ ἔδωκα αὐτοῖς προστάγματα οὐ καλά

‘and also I gave them statutes not
good’

Which in context
he takes to mean human sacrifice. The early secular scholars pooh-poohed the
biblical claim that child sacrifice was rampant in the ancient world, but now
that archaeology has confirmed this it is popular to blame YHWH. Jeremiah
19:5-6 is seen as a revulsion against what YHWH had originally commanded, and
Leviticus 20:1-5 is easily dismissed via the documentary hypothesis.

Such speculation
is second nature for materialists, and the Bible is written such that whatever
framework of interpretation we operate under there always will be difficult
scriptures. Rashi paraphrases Ezekiel 20:25 as “I delivered them via their evil
inclination to statutes not good…” I believe this is also how some of us
interpreted it long ago. In much of the first chapter of Romans Paul argues
along this line, as in verse 28, “And even as they did not like to retain God in
their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those
things which are not convenient…”

But what happens
if the Bible contains the word of God? Then we are justified to go with
Jon D. Levenson and assume that YHWH—as the concept of him evolved—had earlier
commanded human sacrifice but later through the protest of the prophets came to
be seen as proscribing it. If we can pick and choose we also can dispense with
miracles such as the Exodus and the revelation at Sinai, and we are free to
speculate wildly as long as we frame it with valid linguistics, archaeology,
etc. But the day also arises when postmodernism seeps into our discipline, when
all objective truth is rejected and one is left only to tell stories of
oppression by white, heterosexual males. And in that day—a day which is mostly
here already—the greatest evil in the world will be those Israelis and right
wing American fundamentalists who still cling to their Bibles and their guns.[25]

Ehrman, Bart D. 1996. The Orthodox Corruption of
Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the
New Testament. Oxford University Press.

Gelernter, David. 2005.
Americanism—and Its Enemies. Commentary, January. For those who do not
have access to Commentary’s archives, this article is available at
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Hst/US/AmericanismGelernter.htm.

Hamilton, James Merrill. 2006. The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman:
Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15. The Southern Baptist
Journal of Theology 10.2:30-54. Available on
line at http://jimhamilton.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/hamilton_sbjt_10-2.pdf.

Hersh, Reuben. 1999. What Is Mathematics, Really?
Oxford University Press.

Seely, Paul H. 1991. The Firmament and the Water Above.
Part I: The Meaning of raqia‘ in Gen 1:6-8. The
Westminster Theological Journal 53, pp.
227-40. Available on line at
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf.

Silva, Moisés. 1983. The New
Testament use of the Old Testament: text form and authority. Pages 147-172 in
Scripture and Truth, ed. By D. A Carson and John D. Woodbridge. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

[11]Hebrew
בָּרִחַ‘piercing’ in
parallel with
עֲקַלָּתוֹן‘crooked’ in Isaiah
27:1 is perfectly matched by Ugaritic brḥ
and ‘qltn in the Baal and Mot myth—which also mentions
leviathan. See Gibson (1977).

[14]
Peter Singer is Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at
Princeton University. He is a champion of the notion that man
has no preeminence above the beast, a strong proponent of abortion,
euthanasia and infanticide, and even argues for bestiality. His website
is at http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/.

[22]
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/26/humanrights.animalwelfare;
and also http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F4107768%2F4107769%2F04107837.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4107837&authDecision=-203.